Customer Reviews

Reinventing Jesus

5 star:		(37)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

In some ways the title is unfortunate, because Reinventing Jesus is so much more than another response to The Da Vinci Code (as good as some of those are). What this book provides is excellent scholarship on a number of issues that have been inadequately addressed, if addressed at all, by traditional apologists. The authors have actually lowered themselves to address arguments and theories that academics rarely encounter in scholarly circles. As noted in Reinventing Jesus, much of said sludge has flowed forth as a result of -- in the author's words -- "ready access to unfiltered information via the Internet and the influential power of this medium. The result is junk food for the mind--a pseudointellectual meal that is as easy to swallow as it is devoid of substance." Id. at 221-22. In response, Reinventing Jesus provides rebuttals to arguments propounded by the likes of Internet Infidels, Robert M. Price, and even, yes, Earl Doherty (though not yet his Jesus Myth stuff).

In my opinion, the best part of the book is a superb discussion of the textual transmission of the New Testament. There is the usual stuff we see from apologists like Josh McDowell about the wealth of manuscript evidence comparative to other ancient writings, but there is a lot more. Reinventing Jesus breaks down the information into greater detail, explaining the manuscript evidence more deeply, the nature of the disagreements in the traditions, the types of traditions and their origins. The result is a powerful case for accuracy of our modern translations. All this is written for the layperson, but the authors apparently believe that the layperson can handle a lot more (intellectually and spiritually) than is typically assumed. This targeting of the well-informed layperson is a hallmark of the entire book, resulting in more information and deeper analysis than the typical apologetic provides.

The discussion of the origins of the NT Canon is also excellent, once again giving layreaders more information than they may be expecting. Reinventing Jesus goes through the criteria by which the books of the NT were chosen and is candid about which books were quickly accepted as well as those which where not. The authors also discuss those who made the decisions and when the decisions were made. Special attention is given to the last books to be accepted. In this section, as well as throughout the book, the authors attempt to come up with examples and metaphors from sports, work, pop culture, or everyday life. Most of these examples are well made and a feature employed throughout the book.

Another very effective set of chapters addresses what the authors call "Parallelomania." Here the authors take on an argument that even many of the online-skeptics have abandoned; namely that Christianity was merely a myth based on pre-existing pagan myths. It is good that they do such an excellent job of debunking all of the supposed "parallels" because too many of the underinformed on the internet are still being taken in. Reinventing Jesus is successful in showing that the core doctrines of Christianity originated out of Judaism and the events in the life of Jesus and his apostles. The supposed "parallels" between Christianity and the pagan religions are either based on word games (describing very different beliefs as if they were the same), misunderstandings of the evidence, are the result of pagan copying of the more successful Christian belief system, or are the result of some Christian copying of pagan beliefs in the third and fourth centuries (after the core NT beliefs were already well-established). There are several online responses to parallelomania, but this chapter exceeds most of them in its breadth, depth, and readability.

The chapter on the Council of Nicea is quite good. There are also chapters about the accuracy of the NT, oral tradition, and authorship of NT documents that are solid discussions, though not the best available. Still, they add to the value of the book and fill out the complete picture that the authors are trying to impart.

As for other features, there is a helpful list of Suggested Reading for each part of the book, as well as a scripture index and subject index. My only real complaint about the book is that it uses book endnotes, rather than footnotes or chapter endnotes.

On a whole, Reinventing Jesus would be an excellent addition to any apologist's or pastor's library. In fact, it is so effective and readable, it would be a good buy for any Christian wanting to better understand the history of their faith (as all should). It is a big step above Josh McDowell's helpful though basic historical apologetic books. It effectively engages some of the most recent skeptical arguments that having been spreading with the help of the internet. Finally, it trusts laypersons to sort through the good and the bad in the historical evidence while maintaining a very readable presentation.

One of foundational claims of The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown is that the Bible of Christian tradition is unreliable. The result is that our idea of Jesus doesn't match up with the real Jesus who was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child with her. Rather than respond directly to the speculations of the novel and works like it, Reinventing Jesus by J. Ed Komoszewksi, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace seeks to provide a positive case for why we can trust the New Testament and the Jesus it speaks of.


Reinventing Jesus is divided into five parts consisting of 18 chapters together. Part one deals with whether or not the first Gospel writers were able to get the story right. Part two is an analysis of the transmission of the Gospels seeking to show that what we have now is incredibly close to what was originally written. The canon of the New Testament is tackled in part three, where explanations are given for why some were included in the Bible and others weren't. With the reliability of the scriptures established, part four goes on to look at what the New Testament says about Jesus. Finally, in part five, Christianity is defended against accusations that it borrowed from pagan mythology.

Throughout the book, the authors interact with the claims of The Da Vinci Code and other more scholarly works that question the historicity of the Bible, but the central focus is more about a positive case for Christianity than a defensive one. At the end of the book are subject and Scripture indexes, as well as a thorough recommended reading list according to each part of the book.

Of the works that deal with claims like those in The Da Vinci Code, Reinventing Jesus is one of the more scholarly. That said, it does a commendable job of making the scholarly discussions accessible and relevant to "motivated laypersons" without dumbing down the material or making the reader feel dumb. The book covers a wide hosts of issues related to the Bible and Jesus, but due its focus on a positive case for Christianity, lacks a thorough critique of Gnosticism or "the sacred feminine." Ultimately, Reinventing Jesus is a great book for readers who want accurate first-hand information from scholars about the historicity of the Christian faith in light of "novel speculations."

Perhaps the rallying cry of _Reinventing Jesus_ (hereafter RJ) is the adage, "An ounce of evidence is worth a pound of presumption." (p. 101, 260) The slogan is most appropriate given the number of shady Jesus theories that presently abound. And surely it represents the approach any honest inquirer should take when (s)he investigates the historical Jesus or any other area of interest for that matter.

From the subtitle ("What _The Da Vinci Code_ and Other Novel Speculations Don't Tell You") RJ might appear at a glance as another full-scale critique of Dan Brown's novel. It isn't really, nor should it be. There are plenty of good critiques already in print, which are devoted to _The Da Vinci Code_. Darrell Bock's _Breaking the Da Vinci Code_ (2004, Nelson Books) and Bart Ehrman's _Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code_ (2004, Oxford University Press) are sufficient to this end. RJ, on the other hand, seeks to take more of a general approach to the issues raised in novels like Dan Brown's. Yes, some of Dan Brown's claims are recognized, but he is by no means the sole target. Bart Ehrman (of _Misquoting Jesus_ (2005, HarperSanFrancisco) fame) and Robert Funk (founder of the infamous Jesus Seminar), for example, are cited with some frequency, not to mention several others.

Even the main title of RJ requires perhaps a brief explanation. Several weeks ago on a theological webboard, I mentioned that RJ was available for purchase to which someone replied, "Does `reinventing' mean that Jesus was invented in the first place?" No, that's not what the title implies; quite the opposite. The title suggests that the old, familiar perspective of Jesus (though not unanimous in all the nitty-gritty details to be sure) is being recast in a new, radically different perspective that is not true to the historical evidence. As the authors state near the end of the book, "Responsible historians and fiction writers may breathe the same air, but they do not share the same respect for historical evidence." (p. 261)

RJ divides itself into five sections, which deal with matters of the oral and textual transmission of the Bible, canon (not the kind that launches projectiles) formation, Christology (specifically, the question of whether Jesus was thought of as God from the inception of Christianity), and comparative religion (the focus here being the question of whether Christianity was unique among ancient religions).

While a lot of RJ's content would typically be considered dry for the average lay reader, the authors showcase a palatable style as demonstrated in writing that is devoid of (at least unexplained) scholarly jargon and chapters that are brief. There are copious footnotes in the back of the book for each chapter, but the reader can pass over them without really be the poorer for having done so.

Prior to publication, I preordered six copies of RJ: One for me and five for a few friends. I seldom pass books along blindly like this. But now that I've read RJ, I don't regret having done so. Although the book will resonate most strongly among Protestant evangelical Christians (the position from which the authors write), anyone who is tired of the reckless conspiracy theories being thrown around about Jesus, regardless of his or her background, will appreciate the honest scholarship in this book on some level.

For twenty years now, the Jesus Seminar has been roaming the land educating people about what Jesus really said. A book dealing with secret prophecies contained in the Pentateuch called The Bible Code made its appearance in 1998 and was widely read. But when it comes to matters of faith and scriptural "analysis," nothing tops Dan Brown's blockbuster 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code, detailing a fictional plot by the Church to conceal the truth about who Jesus really was. (The movie was released May 19, 2006.) Furthermore, scholar Bart Erhman's book Misquoting Jesus, about the formation and preservation of scripture, has become a surprising bestseller and an English translation of The Gospel of Judas (for which Erhman provides the commentary) has been published with considerable fanfare.

It is clear that an unprecedented number of people are asking who Jesus was and what do we really know about him. Where did scripture come from and how did it come to be in its present form? Is it reliable? What are Christians to make of all this?
Central to addressing these questions is the academic discipline of "textual criticism." There were no printing presses to make copies of documents in biblical times so documents had to be hand copied by trained individuals. Even with training, these copyist or scribes were inclined to make errors. Some copyist may have altered texts intentionally. Maybe they wanted to improve on the clarity of the wording or maybe they had ulterior motives.

Jesus died around 30 C.E. and most of the New Testament was written in the second half of the first century. We have none of the original texts, though we do have some significant fragments that date to the second century. Textual critics examine all the various copies in an effort to regain the content of the original documents. Using multi-disciplinary resources these scholars also try to establish the veracity of authorship and the date of production for the original documents.

The pressing question for many of us is, short of going to seminary, how are we to address the issues being raised in the media and cinema about Jesus and scripture? Up until now I have not encountered a resource that helps people sort through these issues in a succinct and jargon free way. However, Kregel Publication's Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don't Tell You by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer and Daniel B. Wallace, is just such a resource.

Reinventing Jesus puts textual criticism in terms readers can easily comprehend. The book reminds me some of Lee Strobel's work in that it makes often complex topics accessible. The authors explain:

"Textual criticism in general is the study of the copies of any written document whose original is unknown or nonexistent in order to determine the exact wording of the original. Such a task is necessary for an extensive amount of literature, especially that which was written prior to the invention of the movable-type printing press in the mid-fifteenth century. And the New Testament is no exception to this rule. Textual criticism is needed for the New Testament for two reasons: (1) the original documents (known as autographs) no longer exist, and (2) no two copies agree completely. In fact, among even the most closely related copies from the first millennium A.D., there are as many as ten differences per chapter. If the originals were still with us, there would, of course, be no need for this discipline."

The book opens with a presentaion of key terms and concepts. The authors summarize what the gospels are, why the gospels were written the way they were, and when scholars believe the gospels were written. Especially important to this discussion is the fact the Jesus didn't write anything down. How can we know that the gospel texts are reliable portrayals of Jesus' teaching? After addressing these issues, the authors give a very helpful presentation of textual criticism.

From here the attention turns to other substantive issues. The authors relate the process through which the scripture became canon, once again making a complex topic accessible to non-academic readers. They address the topic of Jesus' divinity as it played out in the early centuries of the Church. They end the book with an examination of the likelihood that elements of the gospels were merely rearticulations of prevalent myths of the time.

The authors are frequently in dialog with the Jesus Seminar, The Da Vinci Code and Bart Erhman in portions of the book. They help place the Gospel of Judas in an appropriate context even though the Gospel of Judas came after this book was written and it is not directly referenced. While the book helps the reader understand the issues involved with these other works, it is not simply a rebuttal. The book also works as primer for understanding the broader application of the issues addressed.

The authors distance themselves from the "King James Version only crowd" on the right as well as those on the left that discount the veracity of the scripture as the authoritative Word of God. The authors clearly see themselves at the center of evangelical scholarship. I can't speak with great authority as to this characterization but it does seem to fit with what I know of the topic and with the judgment of others whom I trust (Craig Keener and Scot McKnight among others.)

At the end of the book, the authors claim six conclusions can be made from their presentation:

1. The Gospels are historically credible witnesses to the person, words, and deeds of Jesus Christ. What the evangelists wrote was based on a strong oral tradition that had continuity with the earliest eyewitness testimony. In essence, the gospel did not change from its first oral proclamation to its last written production.

2. The original text of the New Testament has been lost, but it has been faithfully preserved in thousands of copies. Today we are certain of about 99 percent of the original wording. In no place is the deity of Christ or his bodily resurrection called into question by textual variants. Although much of the wording of the text has undergone change over the centuries, the core truth-claims of Christianity have remained intact.

3. The ancient church exercised careful scrutiny and sober judgment in determining which books belonged in the New Testament. They showed deep concern for authenticity--authentic authorship, history, and theology. And although the church wrestled with some of the books for centuries, a substantial core of books was accepted in the beginning.

4. There is no evidence that the early church had to sort through various gospels to find the ones that agreed with the Christian community at large. Rather, the earliest Gospels prevailed precisely because they were written early, they were written by reliable eyewitnesses and/or historians, and they were not given to flights of fancy.

5. The view that the divinity of Christ was invented in the fourth century is historically naïve. From the time that the New Testament was penned through the centuries that followed, the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus was consistently viewed as more than a man by his followers. Even the enemies of Christianity recognized that the early Christians worshiped Jesus Christ as deity.

6. The Christian message did not plagiarize the writings of pagan religions. There is no substantiated connection between belief in the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ with the cults of Osiris, Dionysus, or Mithra. Alleged parallels between earlier religions and Christianity are not sustainable when the evidence is fairly examined.

I readily agree that the authors have made their case.

As to the authors themselves, I know none of them personally, although I have corresponded by e-mail with Dr. Komoszewski. You will observe from the bios at their website (see below) that two authors hail from Dallas Theological Seminary and one from Western Seminary. As someone who is decidedly not dispensationalist and probably not supportive of other distinctives at these institutions, I came at this book with a degree of caution. I found pleasantly little in this book that gave me pause. On the contrary, I found myself affirming most of what I read. I am sure others more thoroughly trained in the subject matter will find points here and there they wish to debate. Nevertheless, the book is a very good introduction to the topic from an evangelical perspective, it is well written, extensively footnoted, and it should serve well as a primer for textual criticism and related topics. I highly recommend it for anyone who is looking for just such a resource.

The authors have a website called www.reinventingjesus.info. In addition to the book, the authors are beginning to schedule their own "Reinventing Jesus Seminars." You can also learn more about the authors, the book, and events surrounding the book's release.

(This is modified copy of my review I wrote at my blog krusekronicle.typepad.com)

General observations: This book is solid, clear, and winsome from front to back. And it's one of the most creatively and effectively organized apologetics books written to date.

Specific Highlights:
1. The section on New Testament manuscripts is absolutely unique in popular apologetic literature. The information in this section isn't covered as thoroughly or accessibly from a conservative perspective anywhere else.

2. The entire book is well written but the section on the divinity of Jesus is especially so. By the time I got to the chapter on the Council of Nicea, I forgot I was reading "heady" material. That chapter was as enjoyable as it was insightful.

3. This book combines the best of both worlds: readable prose and serious documentation. By relegating more technical information and references to endnotes, the authors have constructed a book that will serve students and scholars, as well as general readers who can opt to read the less technical chapters and skip the advanced stuff in the back. This was a bold and brilliant move on the part of the publisher.

Concluding thought: One reviewer already noted how Christians should purchase this book to encourage publishers to make more of the same. I couldn't agree more! But I hope that Kregel Publishing will be encouraged to publish more editions of THIS book. With more junk on Jesus sure to come down the pike, Reinventing Jesus could easily be updated every few years to stay current.

This book is a groundbreaking book that is sure to become a classic apologetics text!

For years now I've been lamenting the sad state of published apologetics, as it seemed that there was far more interest in getting out insipid eschatological novels than in offering defenses of the faith rooted in sound scholarship. I was glad when Lee Strobel's works finally jimmied that door some, and when Licona and Habermas cracked it further open with The Resurrection of Jesus; and now, this trio has blown the door off its hinges and sent it flying into the atmosphere.

I'll put it bluntly: Buy this book. Buy multiple copies and pass them out. Rent a forklift and buy a whole pallet of them. I don't care if you know all of the stuff that's in it already. If you're tired of the Christian publishing industry putting out the intellectual equivalent of Hostess Ding Dongs in defense of the faith, you NEED to make this book a success, because otherwise, they won't get the message and we'll get more Ding Dongs instead of more roast beef. Make these three guys stinkin' rich from the residuals or you'll be SORRY.

Yes, yes: There are a lot of names of old rogues here: Ehrman, Price, Baigent, Freke and Gandy -- even Acharya S is called on the carpet some. There's gobs and gobs of juicy material on things like textual criticism, oral tradition, copycat christs (Attis, Mithra, Tammuz, Dionysus, Osiris -- these and more get some treatment), the Jesus Seminar, the canon, forged documents, the Council of Nicea. There's also a few things that are new. It sometimes goes into great detail on these things; at other times, not so. So what? If you give it your support, the publishers will be convinced of the need to make more and then future authors won't have to worry about restraints on size.

It has copious footnotes and recommends for further reading. The writing style is lucid and enjoyable; no dry bones here, and no excuse for being bored. This is a pioneer work that cares about the reader.

In a time when we have things like Ehrman spouting his Chicken Little doubts about the New Testament on public radio, quality response works like these are needed badly, and they need to be supported. The secular world made Ehrman's book a best-seller. Do we dare do any less for Re-inventing Jesus?

Reinventing Jesus addresses the questions of: (a) how do we know the writers of the Gospels got the story right when they finally got around to writing it down; (b) how do we know the Gospels and other New Testament documents weren't distorted by multiple versions and multiple translations copied over hundreds of years; (c) how do we know the right documents were picked to be in the New Testament; (d) did the first Christians believe Jesus was God; (e) did Jesus believe he was God; and (f) how do we know that Christianity wasn't simply concocted from other religions.

Reinventing Jesus is written in a clear and concise style, custom tailored for the layperson. As a layperson, I appreciated the organization of the material into shorter chapters that allowed me digest a limited number of concepts before moving on to others. I thought the authors did an exceptional job in this respect keeping me, as a layperson, from getting lost in the material. The extensive use of endnotes (472 of them) allowed me to follow a thought or concept all the way through to its conclusion without interruption. This is a much needed book for anyone interested in a factual discussion of the origins of Christianity.

Every solid Christian should get this book for their collection. It covers a wide variety of topics in depth enough to equip you to provide an adequate defense of the faith. It puts the key points of the faith under attack, defends them and provides amble evidence to manage dealing with those who do internet research to 'debunk' Christianity. If you've had your faith shaken by recent "gospel" discoveries, listening to media seem to think the four gospels are questionable, but these newly found ones are legit or some fictional movie bears any relation to realtiy - then this book will address and put to rest those matters. Furthermore, this book details the manner by which we got the bible and how we can know the bible is accurate and from eye witnesses.

Get this book, read it, learn it and then loan it to your family and friends. Understanding what we profess, as Christians, makes us stronger in the faith and knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Challenges to the historicity of our faith have been creeping back into mainstream critical thought through recent publications, both scholarly and fiction. Difficult question, both sincere and polemic, have been around since the early days of the apologists and they will be around until Christ returns. Each assault presents its unique challenges and opportunities. The Church must always be ready to recognize these challenges and respond in an appropriate manner. If we neglect to take them seriously or fail to engage them in an intellectual manner, the Church will find itself in a state of cultural irrelevance, having its message relegated to the realm of blind faith, having a foundation of intellectual aloofness, at best, and foolishness, at worst.

The current challenges that we see today are focused upon the authenticity of Scripture and the person of Christ. Did the early scribes make mistakes in the Scripture that make it impossible to discern the true message of the text? Were the books of the Bible chosen with a political agenda? Did the early Church turn a human teacher of love and peace into a deified man who made an atonement for the sins of mankind? Is the story of Christianity based upon Greek mythology? Whether these are being posed by the general public, ABC news, respected scholars such as Bart Erman, or fictional stories like Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, it does not matter; these are the questions, and we all need an appropriate, honest, and well informed response to them.

Reinventing Jesus is a book that meets the challenges of our day head on. It deserves great acclimation because of its representation of excellence in Christian scholarship. Authors Dan Wallace, Ed Komoszewski, and M. James Sawyer are able scholars for the task. They walk the reader through a thorough understanding of today's challenges in an irenic and informed way. What stands out about this book more than any other element is that it is written for a lay reader, yet the content is not sacrificed in any way. The confidence that the authors place in the reader is encouraging and greatly needed. Any person can pick up this book and walk away with both an understanding of the issues involved, and a greater appreciation for the providence of God in the history of the Church. This book has lasting value to be a standard resource in biblical apologetics and historicity.

The book is broken into five parts:

Part 1: I Believe in Yesterday: A walk though the issues involved and the current challenges we face.

Part 2: Politically Corrupt? The Tainting of Ancient New Testament Texts: An introduction to the history and transmission of the text of Scripture helping the reader to understand the process of textual criticism.

Part 3: Did the Early Church Muzzle the Canon?: An answer to all of those who wonder how the books of Scripture went from early letters and historical accounts to part of the Christian canon called the New Testament.

Part 4: The Divinity of Jesus: Early Tradition or Late Superstition?: As the title proclaims, this section shows how the divinity of Christ was not something produced ad hoc by the historical-political motives of a few, but was something that was believed from the birth of Christianity.

Part 5: Stealing Thunder: Did Christianity Rip off Mythical Gods?: A defense of the uniqueness of Christianity directed against current challenges that have resurfaced claiming that Christianity is nothing more than a retelling of old myth.

This book should be on every bookshelf, used for small group discussions, home schooling, discipleship, and any other venue that you can find. If the Church is truly going to reclaim the mind for Christ, we must make books such as these part of our standard reading. This book needs to be on the best seller list. Many thanks to the authors for responding in such a way to the current challenges and entrusting the Church with such a resource.

Michael Patton
President of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries
Director of The Theology Program
www.reclaimingthemind.org

This short paperback should be in every church library in America.

It offers the orthodox response to the hoards of Da Vinci Code enthusiasts, believers in multiple Christianities, and those people who still haven't heard that no, Christianity did not mix up Osiris with Jesus.

Better yet, it is well written, breezy, and comprehensive. It doesn't require you to be a scholar to figure out the arguments.

There is an excellent section on the reliability of the New Testament and textual criticism in general. "Of the hundreds of thousands of textual variants, the majority are spelling differences that have no impact" (p 56). The church fathers cited the New Testament so frequently "that if all other sources for...the New Testament were destroyed...they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the whole New Testament" (p 81).

There is also a section on whether or not the early church put the correct books into the gospel. This is not as comprehensive as it could be, but certainly sufficient for anyone who wants basic questions answered.

One thing I especially enjoyed was the chapter on early forgeries. Did the early church care about forgeries? Did forgeries become mixed up with the real texts?

"The early Christians took seriously the question of authorship" (p 139). The section on how Hebrews was treated should convince any open minded person on just how seriously they took the debate about which texts to add to the canon.

They even answer the old charge that "psuedepigraphy (the writing of a document in someone else's name)" (p 145) was a standard practice in the early church. No it wasn't. The early Christians took very seriously the authorship and age of texts. When 3 Corinthians was found to be a forgery the elder was defrocked as a punishment.

Because so many books are flooding the marketplace about new, hidden gospels the section on the apocryphal gospels is especially needed. Many were written "to entertain the growing population of Christians" (p 153) such as the Protoevangelium, which was one of the earliest. It is also the one least likely to be cited by the Jesus Seminar or Elaine Pagels since it is devout.

No, they prefer the gospels written by Gnostics. And what they always forget to mention in their books is how little the various schools of Gnosticism had to do with Christianity. The Gnostics were the pagan reaction to Christianity. And they arrived long after Christianity.

There are also chapters on whether the earliest Christians regarded Jesus as divine and human, and whether the early Church borrowed from, or was influenced by, paganism.

Also very needed is a discussion on the Council of Nicea where, no, Dan Brown, Constantine did not declare Jesus a God.

The bishops who arrived at Nicea had survived Diocletian's persecution. One had "lost his right eye and gained a limp in his leg before being banished to the mines" (p 210). Other bishops had "lost use of their fingers because their nerves had been seared with hot pokers...Men who had suffered such physical injuries for the sake of spiritual integrity were not about to be told what to believe about Christ" (p 210).